On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Lenard T Diggins wrote:
> in the subject line: "what, no .sex?!
>
> that's exactly what i thouht, and here's a copy of a
> conversation that i had with a friend:
> ...
> it seems to me that having a top level of ".sex" would make it real
> easy to screen for those *hot* sex sites or screen against those
> nasty, repugnant sex sites. now, if you're a parent and you see
> "http://random.firm"; you're pretty clueless as to where your kid
> might have been
Len, you didn't *really* say that a SEX site would be under the FIRM
domain, now did you?! ;-)
/ Randy Cassingham * Author, "This is True" * arcie@netcom.com \
| For info on What I Do, send a blank e-mail to TrueInfo@freecom.com |
\ or check out <http://www.freecom.com/> * I promise you'll like it /
+ FIGHT SPAM! Send a blank e-mail to nospam@mailback.com for help! +
References:
|
|
